Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:44 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:38 pm 
Image


Last edited by Joey on Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:07 am 
Well, today already are two lenses that we know... :shock:

All is alright...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 am 
strangely these photo could be not detected again
luckily i saved them


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:53 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6950
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
Nice to see the A900 as well. I'd love to be the guy in that picture :D .

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:32 pm 
That top LCD looks ridiculously small... But Other than that the camera looks great.
I Really love the styling of the CZ lenses, as well.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:24 pm 
More pictures, now with the CZ 135mm...

Image

Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:21 pm 
Sorry to burst the bubble, but I have no idea why the excitement over something the Nikon camp had for months, only up to 85 and not just 35 short.

Are the standards this low? Can't a high quality 16 to 70/80/85 be made these days? Is SSM such a time-travel technology here? How wrong am I to expect this? How many lens-changes are you going to make without 2 bodies hanging on your neck for this?
Seeing Sony's prices to lenses which haven't even a need for IS/VR, I can't even fathom this one with a normal price tag.


Now for math: Same quality as 16-85 VR at best + Less than half zoom = less than half price? ...................... <Insert guess here :idea:>.


No offense meant. With all the exclamation marks on the title, I'm having a hard time with the excitement over this.
Seriously wondering at the lens priceformance of the Sony camp.


- Cheez


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:36 pm 
I don´t know what you mean, but the high Sony price is relative...

In USA, some store have better price than Canon and Nikon and the some lenses Sony/CZ have better quality.

The actual CZ 16-80mm is about $650, but is the best zoom standar APS-C.

Sony just has 2 years in the market, with 5 camera (include a900) and 6 with the a100 and more lenses than Olympus and Pentax in its Line-Up. The price camera is the best, $499 for a200 and $1099 for a700 and now the business for Sony is the lenses sell and I hope this change soon.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:03 pm 
24-70 f/2.8 is $1,750 :arrow: instead of $1,100.
70-300 is $800 :arrow: instead of $430 (+ VR).
16-80mm CZ has CAs, hasn't SSM, for $700 :arrow: instead of $580 (goes to 85mm + VR + SSM).
... on and on ...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8022
Location: UK
@Cheezburger, do make sure you're comparing like with like.

Now, I'm not overly familiar with Nikon's naming scheme so I had to look this up. Please correct me if I make any mistakes.

The only 16-85 lens I can see is the 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX. The important bits to the name are AF-S =ultrasonic motor, VR = vibration reduction, and DX=cropped sensor! You can't compare this to the 16-35 which is a almost certainly a full frame lens. And given the physical size I wonder if it might be brighter too.

Because of this, if you want something to compare the 16-85 to, then the 16-80 Zeiss is probably closest as a high end lens for cropped sensors. Ok, the Nikon is cheaper and has AF-S and VR which isn't on the CZ, but the CZ is brighter on the long end with f/4.5. I'm not familiar with the positioning of the lens and it's quality. For example, it might also be compared to the Sony 16-105 which has a more range and lower cost than the 16-80.

If anyone is still reading, I suggest you stop. With a little luck they might announce this lens with the A900 THIS WEEK. Then we can stop guessing.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm 
B&H the reference web for price...

Some price and the different is not big.

I think the preference is what you want. I don´t want prime CZ lenses with SSM and all this lenses are stabilized.
The AF motor in a700 is very fast and SSM o AF-S is not warranty of speed, just quiet noise.

Sony 70-200mm SSM G = $1799.99
Nikon 70-200mm AF-S VR = $1649.95

CZ 24-70mm SSM = $1749.99
Nikon 24-70mm AF-S VR = $1699.95

Sony 70-300mm SSM = $799.99
Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR = $479.95

Sony DT 55-200 = $229.99
Nikon DX 55-200 AF-S VR = $219.95

CZ 85mm = $1299.99
Nikon 85mm = $1024.95

Sony DT 18-200 = $499.99
Sony DT 18-250 = $549.99
Nikon DX 18-200 AF-S VR = $669.95

Is camera is differente, the a200 and a300 has better features than D60 and them are cheaper.
a200 + 18-70mm = $499.99
D60 + 18-55mm = $759.99

The excitement is for a900, a Pro camera cheaper than D700... a good and different option to Nikon and Canon...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:33 pm 
Didn't notice full-frame issue. Point taken.

(1) My previous post is still relevant over price and performance to the state of the art of the other camps, (2) as well with usability issues of this lens without 2 bodies, (3) and why so few lenses tend to offer SSM in the first place to seem such a wonder. Shouldn't SSM already have been implemented long ago? Sony's was in the market long before this trend even appeared. 0 general lenses for non A900 with this - and no one even has an A900 :?

Later Edit: Alex, are you sure there even is a 24-70 VR? I don't remember any such... maybe I missed it.

Only lens that isn't more expensive is the 18-200. All others are > and some by a wide margine as the mentioned 24-70 (+~$650) / 70-300 (+~$350) / 16-80 (+~$120) and more of the most used lenses in the whole line.

I didn't mention bodies, but I see it like this (and no Canon in the picture): D60 ($760) sees the A350 ($800), and D40 ($500) sees the A200 ($500). Once again, I'm disregarding bodies, just asking about lens standards.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:47 am 
You can not compare body that...

Entry level without LV:
-a200 ($499 with kit)
-D40
-D60
-K200D

The a200 has beteter features and resolution than D40 to the same price.

Entry level with LV:
-a300 ($599 with kit)
-E-420
-1000D

Medium level:
-a350 ($699 only body)
-450D
-E-520?
-Nikon D90 (maybe higher)

SemiPro:
-a700 ($1099 only body)
-D300
-40D
-50D
-E-3
-K20D/GX-20

The Sony camera have the best quality/price in the market...

The Sony lenses are not IS (VR = Nikon or SSS = Sony) and with motor lens (AF-S = Nikon and SSM = Sony) Sony has 4 lenses in the market:
-Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 2.8/24-70 SSM ZA
-Sony AF 70-200mm f/2.8 SSM G
-Sony AF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM G
-Sony AF 300mm f/2.8 SSM G

Announced:
-Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 2.8/16-35 SSM G
-Sony AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 SSM G
(Maybe)
-Sony AF 200mm f/2 (or f/4) SSM G
-Sony AF 400mm f/2.8 SSM G

The prime line-up don´t have (for me is OK) SSM, just the tele:
-Sony AF 16mm f/2.8 FishEye
-Sony AF 20mm f/2.8
-Sony AF 28mm f/2.8
-Sony AF 35mm f/1.4 G
-Carl Zeiss Plannar T* 1.4/85 ZA
-Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/135 ZA
-Sony AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro (G quality)
-Sony AF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (G quality)
-Sony AF 500mm f/8 Mirror (the only one Mirror lens with AF).

The lens G and CZ type is the most Pro lens, similar to L lens in Canon system.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:29 am 
Cheezbrgr wrote:
Didn't notice full-frame issue. Point taken.

(1) My previous post is still relevant over price and performance to the state of the art of the other camps, (2) as well with usability issues of this lens without 2 bodies, (3) and why so few lenses tend to offer SSM in the first place to seem such a wonder. Shouldn't SSM already have been implemented long ago? Sony's was in the market long before this trend even appeared. 0 general lenses for non A900 with this - and no one even has an A900 :?

Later Edit: Alex, are you sure there even is a 24-70 VR? I don't remember any such... maybe I missed it.

Only lens that isn't more expensive is the 18-200. All others are > and some by a wide margine as the mentioned 24-70 (+~$650) / 70-300 (+~$350) / 16-80 (+~$120) and more of the most used lenses in the whole line.

I didn't mention bodies, but I see it like this (and no Canon in the picture): D60 ($760) sees the A350 ($800), and D40 ($500) sees the A200 ($500). Once again, I'm disregarding bodies, just asking about lens standards.


The Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED is $1,699.95.
The Sony CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 is $ 1,749.99.

Their difference is not $650 dollars...


Yes there is a price difference between the Nikon and Sony lenses. That's quite obvious. Why is the majority of Sony lenses more expensive than Nikon's? I don't know. Maybe because of different builds, might be due to Sony's 'relatively' new experience in the lens field, maybe it has to do with quality and performance. Perhaps it's Nikon keeping a fairly lower price because of a lack of a VR/IS system in the lens/camera.

How long has Nikon's 24-70mm been out on the market, and what was it's original sale price? We might see Sony lowering the prices of there lenses as time goes by...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:50 am 
I am sorry, the Nikon 24-70mm is not a VR and the Carl Zeiss yes...

The Sony 70-200mm costed about $1999.99 the last year and now is $1799.99, $200 less...


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group